Edlyn, try to understand this: No one is asking you to ask the question. They are asking you to answer the question.
The are two responses to the question, and they are…
- The answer is (fill in the blank to the best of your ability.)
- I don’t know.
—I rarely feel compelled to ask a question that I already intuitively know the answer to.—
But that’s exactly the problem: from your own description, you do not “know” it, you feel it. Knowledge is not a feeling, but rather a shorthand for an explanation. If there is no explanation, then there is no knowledge, just the feeling of having it. I do not doubt that you have this feeling, and you don’t have to continue asserting that you have it: I believe you. However, that feeling does not demonstrate that god’s spiritual will is moral. It doesn’t even get close to dealing with the issue.
Anyone can feel that what they are doing is moral, but this feeling establishes nothing. Plenty of people FEEL that they are doing right when they are doing perfectly horrible things. Plenty more feel and believe that god is working through them (though not always the same god in every case)
—I’m okay with that because of my realization that spiritual matters are something that one experiences and gains understanding of.—
If you have understanding, then you can share it. Otherwise, it’s not understanding: it becomes no better than everyone else’s unsupported assertions.
—Regardless of how much I would like to, I cannot make this connection for you.—
It doesn’t sound like you can make the connection even for yourself: all you can do is feel as if it had been made.
I keep coming back to “in the image of God he created him.” Well, what kind of image is that? Old fellow, really big, with a long white beard in thirteen parts doesn’t quite cut it. Certainly knowledge of morality isn’t a quality that’s a part of that image–recall that that was something man took, and was hurriedly ousted and guarded against lest we took the quality of eternal life (curiously implying that that’s also not an integral part of that image). So what’s left? I see two facets:
1: Creative power–comes across particularly in the first commandment of all, to name all the living creatures; the Jewish mystical traditions are very big on the power of language, and particularly of naming.
2: Absolutely sovereign will–choices could only be warned against, but ultimately could not be stopped. The consequences of them, sure–but man can do that too. The created rock too heavy to lift is the soul of every human being.
So why choose to follow? I think most responses will filter down into two categories: fear, and love. Some will mingle them, some will hold exclusively.
And some will confuse the two and think that one comes from and is even the same as the other, and will use fear to install “love” in their own children, creating a cycle the results of which we see in our own neighborhoods, or worse, in the evening newscasts.
Yeah, that’s one of the downsides of that particular narrative.
Originally, I was going to come at the whole “in the image” thing as a kind of essential “birthless” state, with an eye at kicking the whole deeply-downsided parent-child metaphor in the kneecaps–but the text just doesn’t support that tack. More’s the pity.
I think I have been misunderstood.
God is Good. He simply is. That is his nature. He was good, allways has been good, and always will be so.
Because he is also omniscient, he knows all good, and therefore can take a perfect long-term view of it.
Assuming that one wishes to do good (which is your eternal choice) then one would be wise to emulate God, inasmuch as you can.
Okay, Czar and Apos, I have confronted the task of summing up all that I understand of Him and and boiled it down into Czar’s option #1:
We are inspired to respect and honor others, care for and help one another, resist urges to covet what does not belong to us, nor take that which does not belong to us, nor bear false witness against another or commit murder of another. We are urged to forgive and not hate another. I believe it is moral to follow God’s Will because I believe He is the essence of Love and the essence of Morality.
Smiling bandit’s comments are just as valid.
—God is Good. He simply is. That is his nature. He was good, allways has been good, and always will be so.—
This avoids the whole problem: how would you know? Just because god tells you so? He could be lying. He can’t be lying because when he speaks to you it feels so so right and unquestionable? Well, what do you want: he’s an all-powerful being, he can make you think and feel anything if it suits his purposes.
—Because he is also omniscient, he knows all good, and therefore can take a perfect long-term view of it.—
Many people, even without oniscience, claim to know that certain things are good, and others are bad. This alone doesn’t make them good, however, or ensure that they will proclaim goodness as opposed to what best serves their ends to say.
—Assuming that one wishes to do good (which is your eternal choice) then one would be wise to emulate God, inasmuch as you can.—
I wish to be good. Whether or not this involves emulating god is entirely beside the point. If god is good, that’s great. But if not, I still want to be good. God’s nature is irrelevant to my desire to be good.
(Indeed, how should I begin to “emulate” god: by slaughtering the first born of my enemies to “send them a message” and demonstrate my kickass powers? Should I start by claiming total domination over the entire universe?)
—We are inspired to respect and honor others, care for and help one another, resist urges to covet what does not belong to us, nor take that which does not belong to us, nor bear false witness against another or commit murder of another. We are urged to forgive and not hate another. —
And YOU judge these things to be good, right? (So do I)
—I believe it is moral to follow God’s Will because I believe He is the essence of Love and the essence of Morality.—
If god is good just because god advocates good things, that’s a whole different ball of wax. If god is good, then that’s perfectly conventional.
But in that case, WHAT is good or not has nothing to do with god’s opinion or nature, anymore than it does with anyone’s opinion or nature.
Or to put it in terms of the OP, it seems to me that Smiling Bandit and Edlyn don’t accept that humans are unable on their own to judge what is moral. That it to say, both your last answers suggest that you think that God’s morality should be obeyed because in your judgment it is a good morality. Which is fine, but it certainly leaves God in a slightly less essential role (as sole arbiter of what is moral) than some Christians would allow (Shodan in particular as I understand it).
You lost me on this comment.
I think perhaps that you have already forgotten that spiritual connection with Him. I wouldn’t agree with the conclusion you drew, not at all.
Before I respond, Edlyn, would you mind clarifying. Do you disagree with my conclusion that your last post suggests that you think that God’s morality whould be obeyed because in your judgment it is a good morality, or my conclusion that this leaves God in a slightly less essential role? Or both?
Sorry about that Princhester. I should have been more careful with the cut/paste and preview steps.
I previously stated these points: (1) that God is the essence of morality and love, (2) that one’s spirit came from God providing a connection to God, and (3) that some are more attuned to that connection than others.
From that position of belief, God is essential concerning morality. It also recognizes that individuals, regardless of whether or not they’re atheists, do have the ability to recognize what is moral because of the spiritual connection, that part of Him within you. So yes, we are able to recognize what is moral, but we’re not doing that all on our own.
If we agree on basic moral principles, including the noncoercion principle :), does it matter that I believe in God and you do not? Nope.
I just finished paying a visit to the thread you originally referenced since I had not looked at it. For what it’s worth, I no longer recite the PoA and I think it should be returned to the original version. I also think it doesn’t belong in schools until the age of consent.
The problem, Edlyn, is that 1) begs the very question we are trying to answer: namely, is god’s will good, and why?
If god’s will is good, how do we know this? That we are supposedly attuned to god’s wishes does not answer the question, nor does the idea that god tells us that what he wishes is good.
The “why” question is even harder, because we are asking WHY some things are good and some are not. My response, which you said confused you, gave my answer to THAT question: morality cannot have anything to do with the wishes of god or god’s nature, or else it wouldn’t be a morality, just god’s will. Saying that “god is good” necessarily implies this, because it implies that there is some standard (wich exists regardless of god’s nature) by which we can judge god to be good.
The two categories are: [ul][li]fear[/li][li]desire[/ul][/li]
That is what the two cheribs that guard the entrance to the Garden of Eden represent. If you overcome all fear and desire then you can eat of the fruit of eternity.
Eternity is not a measurement of time, but a condition in which there are no opposites, such as good or bad. Atonement is when one is “at one” with God.
Christianity is not the only religion that believes these things.
Then there is the concept of ying/yang so Christians are not alone in the idea of being “at one” with a higher sense of being.
*[sup]underline is mine.[/sup]
Apos - I don’t understand why you are tying yourself into a knot. Relax a little bit. Why do you ask me if God’s will is good and why? And if God’s will is good, how do we know this? You have already answered a part of this.
While I perceive that these came to us from God through the Ten Commandments and was restated by Jesus, though you do not acknowledge the same, we both still believe that they are good.
You followed this with:
You are intelligent and must know that if you do the opposite of any of the above, you will cause harm to another. What is it that you are really trying to ask? How “evil” could exist if God does too? Pardon me if I am failing to understand you.
kinz:
Thanks for sharing. I agree. Edgar Cayce provided a view concerning “oneness” that I found most interesting.
Edlyn, with the very greatest of respect, you just don’t get it. You appear to be entirely missing the point of the OP. You are answering a question that neither myself nor Apos is asking. And when we point this out, you just say, essentially, “relax and don’t worry about it”!
I can certainly accept that the OP is not that important. It is just playing the philosophical musing game, after all. Purest mental masturbation, if you don’t mind me being crude. But if you are not interested in playing that game, if you don’t have an answer and don’t think the question is worth answering, then with the very greatest of respect, what are you doing here?
You don’t see any contradiction there?
May be. I’m not a great theologician, but I believe God built us with the capacity to learn to know of good and evil, hence the “fortunate fall” which gave birth to mankind as opposed to really smart but innocent animal-like species before the metaphorical apple.
That may have been confusing.
I mean that we could choose to know about good and evil and set out into the world as something more than the base, uncomprehending, animal. God allowed us the power to choose good and evil if we wanted it. Which we do and did.
Therefore, we can judge god, and find him to be good in all ways.
I’m sorry, I completely forgot about this thread! 
OK…
The OP critiqued a “knowing God’s morality” by saying, “we know God is moral because he says so” and saying that severely begged the question. But my point was, if we as humans decide what is moral it also begs the question… so what’s the problem?
Sorry for the confusion!